Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22960465

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Not only is an individual's private data nearly worthless, but they can protect it for free simply by using the Brave browser or other adblocking/tracking solutions.

People often claim that they would pay for web content if it were somehow easier or if micropayments worked better or something. I'm not sure that I believe them.

But, instead of throwing our votes into a magic black box, how about we put them on a blockchain and receive a way to audit our own votes?

https://twitter.com/CL207/status/1142651211310485504?s=20

50-100k a coin by December 2021 is what many are targeting this time.

I use the Brave browser now. I think other people should too. Downvotes welcome.

Yesterday I got an email from them saying that they are nuking my Google+.

I will always remember that series of events as one of the most hostile acts of aggression against users that I have ever experienced.

That changed my perspective of Google as a company and I'm not sure that they can ever regain the positive perception that they lost due to those hostile actions.

Now their dominance with Chrome is leading them to make similarly hostile actions: breaking webaudio, attempting to "do away with URLs," forcing unwanted shit on our Internet.

Arrogance is the right word for it.

If you engage in provably Byzantine actions, your stake can be slashed, burned, or otherwise sacrificed or redistributed.

There are Byzantine actions that one can take that are unprovable at this time AFAIK (IE: exploiting the data availability problem).

Are we now free-floating, hoping to find a new solution to the double-spend problem on a fragmented system?

Does the Fisherman approach involve validators randomly checking other validators for phony transactions?

Will validators be incentivized to do this?

Is that why they are called fisherman? Because honest validators are "fishing" around for opportunities to catch invalid transactions and increase their stakes?

How long is the challenge period currently being discussed?

The other attack vector that the fisherman opens, "grieving" attacks, whereby malicious nodes launch a series of false reports, knowingly sacrificing their stakes presumably to overwhelm the system and push through a double-spend or phony token mint or something.

Am I interpreting how this attack works correctly?

Has any thought been given to making the challenge period as long as it needs to be to process all challenges, and incentivizing goodwill from those affected by the slowdowns with a fractional return of the slashed stakes... Maybe like a reverse gas cost? Is that insane?

Won't they eventually hit a point where they promote their product less aggressively and generate significant revenue off the massive ride-sharing network that they've established?

They adopted the Daniel Burnam plan, which reclaimed the lakefront from industrial shipping and attempted to put a park within one mile of every home.

The city is much better off for it, which just goes to show you that even destruction presents the opportunity of rebirth.

I've never had any compliance issues with any other advertising network.

Google works hard to keep the ecosystem healthy because it's good for their long-term interests. But of course, their systems are not perfect.

The finance professional who lives in New York has very valuable page views. The African school girl does not. Yet, through advertising their values are averaged. The affluent subsidize the poor without even knowing it.

Putting content behind a pay-wall reduces this effect and creates an informational disparity that will only broaden the gap of equality between the two.

The New York finance professional just has to decide that the subscription is "worth" paying. The African school girl cannot make this same decision.

Except for that "trying to identify an alternative" part. But let's ignore that, because doing so makes you comfortable.